Indian chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1882-1902, 1887-01-27

The R'ghts and liabilities Of Persons
who Maintain Them.
Tho barbed wire fence is of compare
lively recent origin. II Is useful but
somewhat dangerous, and the rights
and liabilities Of those who maintain
such fences are perhaps not yet fully
ascertaincd as TO all their details.
These two principles, however, will be
found guide TO any ordinary case: 1.
He who maintains any thing that is a
source Of danger TO others Is liable for
any injury resulting thcrefrom. But
(2) one who is aware of the danger and
is liable TO receive injury must take
reasonable precautions 10 protect him
self, and IL he fails In taking such pre-
cautions and is injured for want OF
them he must bear his own loss.
Hence, IL A stretches a barbcd wire
fence along the highway and B is about
10 drive stock along the highway past
the fence, he must while wasting use
all reasonable procautio. co pre-
vent his stock from coming
In contact with the fence TO their
II
stock is injured Notwithstanding A is
liable; or If the injury is of such nat
uro that it would have happened in
spite of any such prccaution A is still
liable, for he can not be relieved by BIS
failure to do thing which would have
availod nothing. But If b acts in
negligent and careless manner and
and there occurs an injury wh.ch he
could have prevented by proper con-
duct the loss is his own; il is his duty
10 prevent any loss il he can, and, fail
ing To do so, he can not recover from
another no more to blame than himself
The division line of farms is in legal
contemplation "a mathematical line
length without breadth or thickness.
Hence fence on the line is an impossi-
bility. 1t must be half on one farm
and half on the other. Where by
agreement of adjoing owners such
fence is maintained each runs his own
risk and can look no further than 10
himself for rccompcnse in case of loss,
for when he agreed to the fence he
agreed to all its dangers.
II A and b are adjoining owners and
A proposes to erect barbed wire line
fence between them and B objects, A
must set the fence wholly within his
own land, for he has no right to set any
part of it upon BIS land without BIS
consent II he place the fence upon
his own land, but so near the lino-say
one inch within it-.that BIS stock is still
in danger while upon his own land, A
is still liable until b knows of the situ-
alton But after B is aware Of the
danger he must protect his stock by a
barrier Of some kind upon his own
land, for he can not continue to expose
his stock to danger and then hold an
other for the loss that may occur. But
II A place the fence so far within
the line of his land say some yards
that BIS stock can not come in contact
with it except by trespass upon
AS land, A is free from liability, for it
is BIS business to cOniine his stock upon
his own land and not allow them TO
trcspass upon adjoining territory. But
Just how near the line of AS land his
fence may be and still exempt him from
liability no one can tell. Under some
circumstances and perhaps with some
kind of stock wider margin would
be allowed than with others. The
foregoing rules apply to accidents and
casualties only. An injury to stock
maliciously planned and executed lies
-, the door of the pcrpetrator. You
will see that it is impossible to give
categorical answer rs to liability for
injuries caused by barbed wire fcnc-
ing. The closest scrutiny into the cir
cumstanccs of the individual case will
often be required in order TO locate
the blame. The rules of law upon this
subject are founded in the strictest jus
ticc and common-scnsc, but So COM
pick may the circumstances be that
their application will become a matter
II the greatest iliculty.-Jdmcs ".
HeEgU iD A. y Tribute